The Moving Picture World (Apr-Jun 1913)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 153 m m ^^= OBSERVATIONS ^ BY OUR MAN ABOUT TOWN ^Jm m Mm WHILE not being unduly sentimental or' pathetical, our feelings were agitated somewhat by comment ^ made upon the motives of a Brooklyn moving picture exhibitor who offered one day's proceeds of his house to the fund for the relief of the Western floods sufferers. "A clever advertising scheme" was the remark I overheard when the offer was made. Nevertheless the exhibitor is standing by his offer and will turn the proceeds over to the relief committee operating at Columbus, Ohio. The exhibitor is Jacob Krause, whose place is at 895 Fulton Street, Brooklyn. Apparently he was the first of the exhibitors in Greater New York to make an offer of that kind. It is hoped the contribution will be a substantial one and, for the sake of rapping the cynical head that has bobbed up, we trust he will give equal publicity to the acknowledgment of the donation; and it is hoped he will do this even if the proceeds are small. The spirit will be vindicated. * * * Theaters throughout the country outside the affected zone are advertising benefits for the flood sufferers, New York managers being among the most active, and the only snarling comment heard was the one directed against the little picture house in Brooklyn. The only answer that can be made to the question as to why commercialism should be charged against the offer of the moving picture manager is that it comes from that class of people who are so unqualifiedly and unalterably opposed to moving picture shows that they can see no virtue in them regardless of circumstances. The prejudice is so deep-rooted nothing can even suspend it. Fortunately such people have so rapidly lost the position they once held by hoodwinking a part of the public that did not investigate for itself that the antagonistic spirit is now practically without effect. Lack of faith in the fairness and honesty of purpose has actually brought defeat to some very creditable measures. * * * It has been stated that the antagonism of clergymen to the motion picture is beyond comprehension. The truth is, but a very small percentage of them are opoosed to the pictures themselves. It is the picture theater they oppose. Those in the majority have exhibitions in their own churches and halls. Those in the minority, or most of them, during the campaigns of the past put themselves so strongly upon record they cannot reconcile themselves to a graceful retreat to the ranks of the liberals. * * * Many of the people who are now staunch supporters of moving pictures are not familiar with conditions as they existed in the past with regard to the antagonism shown against them and the burden exhibitors carried in dealing with it. Opposition to the pictures was not made a straight issue by the opposing forces until recent years, when it developed incidentally in the censorship campaign. The forces that had been fighting for years what they could not attain in or out of the courts saw an opportunity to get it by taking up the censorship agitation, which necessarily placed them on record as being opposed to the pictures themselves to an extent. * * * Now look the whole situation squarely in the face as it existed in New York City and vicinity and it will be seen that the moving picture people have not been antagonistic to the views of the clergy because they felt the latter were opposed to the pictures themselves. The differences were based upon the belief that those of the clergy responsible for the many agitations were so persistently inconsistent in their declarations, charges and actions that they became unreasonable and many times oppressive. Canon Chase is one of the most prominent and respected men in the field of religious work in this country. No one doubts that he is sincere and animated by the best of motives. But local moving picture history shows that at times he has been overzealous and at other times has given reason to believe he was not consistent. * * * The original campaign, started several years ago, was against the exhibition of moving pictures on Sundays. Canon Chase was one of the veterans. The claim was that it interfered seriously with the attendance of children at the after noon Sunday-schools. The motion picture people for the first time entered the plea of inconsistency and discrimination. They pointed out. that neighboring theaters were Tuning Sunday concerts and the pictures would be withdrawn if the enforcement of the law became universal. The concerts continued, and so did the pictures. Then a campaign started against the Novelty Theater in Brooklyn, the charges being directed against the pictures. It was shown that the identical pictures exhibited there were identical with the pictures shown each preceding Sunday at the Majestic Theater in the same city, but the latter house was never interfered with. Why the discrimination was made was never explained. The same parties conducting the campaign against the Novelty had equal jurisdiction against the Majestic, but did not act. * * * Then followed a calm. But it was of short duration. Suddenly a campaign was launched that almost put most of the picture exhibitors out of business. Without a word of warning the building, electrical, fire, health and fire insurance departments fell upon the necks of the exhibitors with demand* for alterations and improvements in the houses that brought to most of the proprietors visions of bankruptcy. In many cases the orders were quite proper; in many others the justification for the sweeping demands were questionable at least. There was a strong belief on the part of the exhibitors that the campaign was not entirely due to voluntary action on the part of the departments, especially when those who were not inclined to act promptly because the same action was not taken against regular theaters who were guilty of many of the same violations were told, "Live up to the requirements, or get out of business. Never mind other places." * * * Then came the morality campaign, then the agitation against admission of children under a certain age, and finally the agitation on the censorship question, which was injected into discussions and ordinances in spite of the emphatic declaration of probably as qualified a jurist as ever sat upon the Supreme Court bench in New York that the proposed measure was unconstitutional. * * * So when you look the field over and weigh all the conditions and developments carefully, it is not difficult to comprehend that Canon Chase and others of the clergy have been one of the two influences against the motion picture business and their efforts have not been restricted to the censorship agitation. Their opposition is not of the same character as in the past because the obeyance of the laws by the picture people has robbed it of its effect, but there is not one of the latter who does not feel himself justified in the belief, in view of all the past, that nothing would be more gratifying to a certain portion of the opposition than to see all the picture houses wiped out of existence. Why beat about the bush and have nicture theater people try and console themselv s with the thought that the years of agitations and annoyances they have been dragged through was not due to hostility? The other influence is hardly worth referring to for the reason that the vaudeville and theatrical interests have gracefully taken their medicine. Their fight was a bitter one while it lasted. With them it was a question of survival that made even persecution pardonable. They tried to stay the progress of the progress and not to annihilate them, and some of them are glad to-day that the motion pictures won out. One of the Shuberts recently said: "All of my houses that are not tied up by contracts are onen to any responsible people who want to put pictures into them. Why, look at us fellows investing thousands upon thousands in putting up big houses, putting on big attractions in plays and people, and turn over and see these moving picture people walk in and show us how to make money. I used to think the pictures were a joke, Dut I don't now." And his recent investments show it. * * * There is one solution for the wiping out of the feeling that has existed between the other hostile influence and the moving picture people. Let the former become reconciled to the fact that the moving picture business is a legitimate one, backed by plenty of legitimate capital invested by people who desire to be recognized as, and demand the right to be classed with, other legitimate and law-abiding people. When causes for complaint ari»<! let conferences be arranged in a businesslike way. There will be found on the picture side enough brains, honesty of purpose and sense of morality to speedily bring about an adjustment of any question that arises on a basis of reason, equity and welfare for all concerned, directly or indirectly. Rushing to legislatures, boards of aldermen and into couits without an effort at arbitration is expensive, and particularly distasteful to the under dog, even if he succeeds in getting on top. Hear the other side before leaping.